First class in photography was yesterday morning, and my prof was a hardline film supporter.  When I mentioned that I just bought a nice digital SLR, he lectured the class on the difference between photography and digital imaging (digital photography).  He mentioned the National Geographic pyramid controversy, and stated that using a digital camera was not photography.  I felt kinda like an asshole boasting about my camera afterwards because anytime he mentioned anything digital, he looked right at me.

After class, I went to work, then back to class (2.5 hours of French) and I couldn't get it off my mind.  I can see his viewpoint, but is using a synthisizer not music?  Or is a digitally designed concept car not art?

Does anyone share this opinion?

BTW:  I had the shortest hair in the entire class

No offense to your teacher but thats Bullnuts

Who cares what media the image is taken on, I dare you to take two photos, one with a film, then one with digital, have them both developed at the same place and see if he can tell the difference.

He seems to be set in his ways obviously as there is nothing wrong with digital photography, its still photography. I'd suggest you stick with it as it takes the same skill to take a picture with a digital camera as it does with a film. The only dramatic difference comes down to development of film.

I don't know exactly what the class is but you should turn all of your work in with digital prints just to prove although its digital, its still photography.

Sorry the post is a little scattered but overall, your teacher has no idea what hes talking about when it comes to digitals. All he is doing is expressing his opinion and pretending its fact. He can stick with film as its his preferred method but to say digital is not photography... I don't think I can post on here what I really want to say.

So my question to your all-knowing teacher is just this.........

"Since you shoot film, is what you do really not photography, since real photography started by using glass plates and not film !".........

Get with the times Teach.......I learned to shoot  photographically with film, processed all my own film, heck, I even loaded my own canisters with a daylight loader and snapcaps.......printed in my own darkroom and used the harder of mediums, by learning with B/W.  Does that mean I'm no longer a photographer since I now only shoot without film, just like the old days when they coated glass with emulsion and never used film ?

Using whatever medium to you use, to present the moment in time that you captured, has no bearing on the definition of Photography. Your teachers lessons should encompass all that you will need to know, to progress satisfactorily in what may become a hobby or way of earning a living. Using film is a skill, which unfortunately for your teacher, is not unlike the skill of using the digital capture and manipulation of those images which are the "now" generations method....learn the skill which will suit your needs !

In the 35 years that I've shot with a serious camera (35mm or digital) I have been here to see the changes from wet processing to dry darkroom stuff, film to sensor, etc......it's all still PHOTOGRAPHY !  

Rifleman wrote on Jan 24^th, 2008 at 11:18pm:


Nice one!!

He'd soon feel bitter about it if amateur photographers came out with better images than him, on a digital camera. Which they would.

I bet he hasn't a clue about the workings of Photoshop, or similar programs, and as such, would come away with some pretty dreadful looking images, compared to what could be described as 'advanced amateur' standards. The only difference between film and digital is that your roll of film is replaced with a memory card, and your lightroom is replaced with a paint program.

expat wrote on Jan 25^th, 2008 at 8:56am:

  National Geographic did a feature on the pyramids.  The photographer took a good landscape shot of the Pyramids and it was chosen to go on the cover, but obivously a horizantal photo doesn't fit on the cover.  They altered the image by moving the pyramids around so it would fit on the cover.

here: http://commfaculty.fullerton.edu/lester/writings/faking.html

Digital cameras (notice I didn't say digital photography?), have long since advanced to the point where there's little, if any dispute. The resolution rivals, and color accuracy are actually better than film. There's just as much difference between a quality digital camera and one brand of film; as there is between two brands of film.

For a long time.. resolution was the deal breaker... But a 6+ mega-pixel digital camera has the resolution to match even ASA100 35mm film when it comes to images (prints) up to 8.5X11... and for higher resolution work.. there are plenty of medium format, professional cameras with MPs in the god knows what range ( 20+MP ?).

My brother taught me the secret to taking great photos .. "Shoot lots of film ! "... so along those lines.. digital cameras are superior to film... You can snap away for a fraction of the cost  

Quote:

You sound somewhat like a Sniper